QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/941114.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 26.9 KB

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 19:09:09 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #1114
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 11 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1114

Today's Topics:
                      Any hams using IRC chat??
                    A receiver for tracking radio
                         CLARC Balloon Launch
                  Cw learning: going slow. (2 msgs)
        DXCC - Time for change : messages from DX circuit FYI
                            FM on HF bands
                      how do you study for code?
                         HR&M Affilaite List
                         Learning CW visually
                Lightning protection advice needed!!!
                         Need info on TS-520
                   Radio Show Exchange Using Maven
           WANTED! Schematic for Alinco SR-4 simplex rptr.
             Wireless security systems and amateur radio

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 16:05:45 UNDEFINED
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Jessup)
Subject: Any hams using IRC chat??

So are any readers of the internet amateur radio groups
also accessing the "undernet" (IRC) ??  We should start
a real-time all-day long QSO!  Kind of like having the
old HT in the office! :-))


--------------------------------------------------------------------
  /`-_     [e-mail]  |
 {     }/ Marquette Electronics, Inc  |  Time for another tea party!
  \    /   Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA  |
   |__*|  N9SQB, ARRL, Amateur Radio  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1994 20:40:21 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Tapio Linkosalo)
Subject: A receiver for tracking radio

 I'm looking for a scanner for 150-174 MHz OR 230-231 MHz range. The
 receiver will be for tracking free flight model airplanes (you put a tiny
 transmitter into the model, and in the case of a fly-away use your
 receiver to localize the model). I can use transmitters in either around
 160 MHz or in 230 MHz range.

 The problem is that here in Finland there are no reasonably priced
 receivers for either of those frequencies, and wide range scanners cost
 at least $800. Jim Bradley, who is one maker of those transmitters,
 writes (I quote):

     Any receiver that will cover the 150 MHz to 174 MHz range will
    work. Radio Shack sell several programmable receivers, called
     scanners, starting at $120 but these are often on sell for as
    little as $90. K-mart also sells one model made by Uniden called
     the Bearcat 50.

 That explains quite a lot. The receiver should be syntheziser-tuned, with
 a rather narrow receivibg band, and most of all: it should have a
 received signal strength meter, or some other way to determ the strength
 of received signal (manually adjusted amplification with no automatic
 compensation for varying signal strength).

 A friend of mine will travel to the US soon, and could bring me a
 suitable receiver with him. I would now need info on suitable models sold
 on Radio Shack or some other company like that, brand&model names and
 prices.

 I'll be most grateful for any info you could send. I think this is not of
 general interest, so please e-mail me at [e-mail].


 I'll forward the info, if anyone else is interested. Thanks!!!

 -Tapio-

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1994 17:48:11 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Robert Biekert)
Subject: CLARC Balloon Launch

Update 10/11/94

Check out the CLARC WWW page, soon will have balloon photos!

  http://www.phoenix.net/USERS/biekert/index.html

Here is some additional information:

Launch time: 11:06 AM local (CDT)
  This was within our launch window of 10:00 to 12:00 AM local

Burst time: 12:18 PM local

Burst altitude: 94,000 to 100,000 ft -- final calculations pending.

Touchdown: 13:39 local

Flight Duration: 2 hours 33 minutes

Recovery Time: 10:09 PM local

Recovery of the payload at landing in a rice paddy in Pearland, TX found it in
pristine condition with all payloads operational at power down. Members of the
Pearland Amateur Radio Club and CLARC Balloon Launch team members cooperated in
the final phase of recovery. The CLARC balloon launch team extends its
appreciation to all the hams who helped in the search and rescue exercise.

Please include a request for all reception reports and payload directed
amateur activties be fowarded to the packet or Internet addresses given
on the original posting on the networks. Also any packet session log files
that could be forwarded on disk would be GREATLY appreciated. These can
be sent to:

CLARC
P.O. Box 57714
Webster, TX 77598


Also, our final calculations put the landing less than 2 miles from the
recovery site.  Prepartions are already in progess for the launch of
NOSTS-2.

73 de Dan, KJ5MX

--
 Robert E. Biekert    KA5GLX   Houston, Texas
 Email:  [e-mail]
 Clear Lake ARC  http://www.phoenix.net/USERS/biekert/index.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 13:05:53
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cw learning: going slow.

 Ne> From: [e-mail] (Steven M. Palm)
 Ne> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
 Ne> Subject: CW Learning: Going slow. :(
 Ne> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 03:21:29 GMT
 Ne> While I am waiting for my ticket to arrive for the No-Code Technician
 Ne> license, I decided to do that which I swore I would never do: Learn
 Ne> Code. ;) (Hey, it helps defeat the blues waiting for the ticket,
 Ne> REALLY! :)
 Ne> I've gotten to the point where I can send code pretty good.  I know
 Ne> all the letters and numbers, working still on the symbols/punctuation.

Learning to send the code is fine but you need to learn the characters as
a sound not a connection of dits and dahs.

 Ne> MY PROBLEM:  I can't receive worth the darn. :(  Actually, I just have
 Ne> a real hard time hearing the sound and connecting in my brain to the
 Ne> actual character, yet sending goes like a snap.
 Ne> Is this a common "hurdle" to overcome, or am I just odd. :)
 Ne> :)  I am using the SuperMorse program (EXCELLENT!) to learn, and am
 Ne> wondering if the code tapes may have been a better route, and this is a
 Ne> side- effect of my choice in learning.

The fastest route to learn code IMO is to utilize tapes and W1AW broadcasts.
The tape will become learned eventually but the W1AW broadcasts vary, and
the written text is available to compare to your copy.

Another route these days is to use a text to morse converter program.  Learning
the code is sometimes a mundane and boring task but, as is anything worthwhile,
it is attainable.  Also learning the characters at 30 WPM with 5 WPM spacing
is the easiest, most efficient way to increase your speed.  Learn the
characters fast and then all you have to eliminate is space to increase your
overall speed.

Good copy and 73

BS KC4WQ

... CW...not the most efficient form of communication but still universal
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 21:13:52 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Approach maximum loads with caution)
Subject: Cw learning: going slow.

In article <[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:

>The fastest route to learn code IMO is to utilize tapes and W1AW broadcasts.
>The tape will become learned eventually but the W1AW broadcasts vary, and
>the written text is available to compare to your copy.

This last weekend I bought a shortwave receiver (Grundig YB 400 - it's great)
and I've been listening to W1AW for a few days now.  In fact, I just got
back from listening to their `slow code' session.  Having listened to a lot
of CW over the past few days, some of it very fast, going back to the slow
code session and my ARRL tapes is a cinch.  It's almost like "c'mon send the
next character already!" :-)

I also heard a few hams on 2m helping one of their friends with suggestions
on how to improve code speed.  Relating to computer programs, one thing they
said that seems to make a lot of sense is to always listen to the characters
at at least 18wpm, but have enough space between the characters until you
can copy reliably.  Then shorten the time between characters.

Trying to copy from W1AW, one thing that's taken me a bit aback, having never
listened to the HF bands before, is the amount of interference.  At first I
thought it was the selectivity of the radio, but now I'm sure it's simply of
other people transmitting on the same frequency.  Yesterday evening, on 40m,
W1AW comes in with a distinct bassy sound, though fairly weak.  While I'm
trying to copy, two other hams with a much stronger signal are having a QSO
on top of this and yet a third person seems to be doing some sort of test -
sending out very long tones (but no i.d. -- isn't that illegal?).  Anyway,
it takes a lot of concentration to copy that W1AW signal in the background.
My code test this Sunday ought to be easy in comparison.

You know you've been studying code too long when you automatically try to
decode random clicks and rattles inside your house, car, or office.

-Dave

 ,----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |                         /                                                  |
 | Dave Munroe            /                               Hewlett-Packard     |
 | [e-mail]    /                             Vancouver, Washington  |
 |                      /                                                     |
 `----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 05 Oct 94 10:46:42 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DXCC - Time for change : messages from DX circuit FYI

In article <2E924029@smtp>, <[e-mail]> writes:

>
> ALL,
> this is my original message. Obviously the topic is hot. Please read it and
> discuss it as you like.
>
> Peter, KC1QF
> [e-mail]
>
> ================================================================
>
>  -> This is my original message.
>
> ================================================================
>
> I read with interest the messages to and fro concerning Scarborough reef. I
> am amazed that people are going to sit down and talk about this forever (it
> seems).
>
> The DXCC doesnt have much of a policy. Lets face it, alot of rules are
> arbitrary. I mean, the 225 mile rule? the 75mile rule? They dont apply
> everywhere, do they? Why 75 or 225, Why not 10, or 1000. Whats going to
> happen next?
>
> When there is enough pressure to have new countries, will they lower it to
> 50 mile separation through intervening states or 10 miles or what? Perhaps
> 225 miles is too much; maybe they should do it 100 miles. Then we will
> instantly have another 100 'countries' and so on. Even as the rules stand,
> why is SV5 a new DXCC, when an Island off Ireland isnt. SV5 sure as hell
> isnt 225 miles away, is it? And so on.
>
> If the ARRL wants the DXCCprogram to be respected, then I suggest they make
> a real change and stick to it. Make a DXCC program based on real countries
> plus remote territories. Thats it. No miles, no separation, nothing. Let the
> politcal world decide, not an advisory panel who sets arbitrary limits and
> separations. This way, you will never have to change it. Never. The only
> changes will happen because of global changes. And these arent decided by
> committee.
>
> Lets see what kind of comments I get on this one.....
>
> Peter, KC1QF
>
>
------------------ Response ------------------
Peter:
I hate to rock the boat, but I don't totally agree with your
accessment of the DXCC award program.

The DXCC countries list as we know it today has evolved over a
number of years and believe it or not, there are valid reasons
why each DXCC country exists. These countries exist, based on the
DXCC criteria that has also evolved over a number of years.

I been a DXer for a long time and I have always been interested
in why countries are on the list. I have studied the DXCC program
and I think I understand why all or most of these countries are
on the list. I understand why, but I admit that I don't always
agree. I have that right.

In your discussion you imply that the rules (criteria) are
arbitrary and that changing the mileage rules would create more
countries (do you think this is bad?). The basic DXCC criteria
has been fairly contstant for a long time, especially with respect
to the mileage rules. In my opinion, the mileage rules are there
for a purpose--to prevent too many countries from being created.
For example: change the "75 mile rule" to no definite mileage, but
specify only separation by foreign land and I will present you with
a handful of new countries real quick.

Contrary to your comment, the DXCC award program is the most popular
and respected DX award in the world. No other countries award even
comes close.

Lastly, you propose an award based on real countries plus remote
territories. Please tell me what constitures a real country or
for that matter, a remote territory? Surprise, you will need rules
or criteria to help determine what whether an entity qualifies,
hence the DXCC criteria....

Now, let me propose a modified DXCC award for the purists--let's
call it the partial DXCC award or pDXCC for short. To qualify one
needs only work real countries or countries of your choice.

I like the DXCC program the way it is, but I retain the right

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 17:32:42 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: FM on HF bands

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>There seems to be a lot of confusion about using FM on HF.  A quick survey found that
>all asked thought 10 meters was the only legal band for amateur HF FM in the United
>States.
>If you can transmit voice in a certain portion of a band, FM is also legal.  FCC
>part 97.305 lists legal modes.
>While I have never heard any FM on 160-12m, I would like to see some of those rigs
>with the capability used on FM.  It may not be the most efficient mode but since
>there is no amplitude variation, you wont have to worry about the neighbor with a
>poorly designed TV seeing anything more than a constant carrier.

Gee, throw in a LF now and again, Ok? Anyway, yes, FM is legal all over
HF, *but*, except on 10 meters, it has to stay in a AM bandwidth (6 kHz).
That's a very narrow bandwidth for FM. I doubt most of the Japanese rigs
with FM capability would be very usable at modulation indexes less than
one.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 16:46:08 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ed Hare (KA1CV))
Subject: how do you study for code?

James C. Stafford ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Also enter a contest  as soon as you can get
: on the air.  The Novice Roundup in late January would be a great one to
: get started in contesting.  Why?  Because most of us are competitive and
: IMHO there is nothing to compare to a well tuned CW operation in a
: contest.  It is a ball!

For those wanting to upgrade to 20 wpm, the CW Sweepstakes will be an
excellent opportunity. Most of the big guns are tooling along at 30+ wpm.
Here is a technique I have recommended:

Find a loud station sending at high speed. Sit on the frequency and listen
again and again until you get the callsign. You might get lucky and get
some or all of the exchange as he works other people. Once you get the
callsign, call by sending your callsign at the end of the "CQ test", at
whatever speed you like. He or she will come back to you at high speed.
(All you need to do is recognize YOUR callsign at 30+ wpm). You call will
be followed by the exchange. Try to copy it, if you can. If you really want
to be in the contest, ask for fills for stuff you miss. If not, send a quick
"R" to signify that you got it, and send your exchange at any speed you
like. If the station copies it (quite likely), you will get an "R TU" and
the station will start calling CQ test again. You move on to your next
conquest.

Plan on spending at least 4 hours for each of the contest days. At first,
you will miss most of the information, but you will get LOTS of free
practice at high speeds, especially for numbers (it is usually the
numbers that get you in the code tests). By the end of the contest, you will
probably find that you are copying pretty well, and you will have added a
few points to a few other station's scores. You will probably have added
10 wpm to your code speed and maybe worked a few new states for your Worked
All States award. And NEXT year you can do it right, send in the log and
everything.

Good luck to all! See you in the CW SS (I will try it again with 10
milliwatts this year!)

73 from ARRL HQ, Ed
--
Ed Hare, KA1CV, ARRL Laboratory, 225 Main, Newington, CT 06111
203-666-1541 [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1994 22:13:24 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Len Winkler)
Subject: HR&M Affilaite List

Ham Radio & More Station List:
The following list can change often....

Alabama:    WHRT, 860am,  Hartselle
            WAJF, 1490am, Decateur
Arizona:    KFNN, 1510am, Phoenix
Colorado:   KBCO, 1190am, Denver/Boulder
Conneticut: WATR, 1320am, Hartford
Illinois:   WKTA, 1330am, Chicago
            WBGZ, 1570am, Alton
Indiana:    WPDJ, 1300am, Huntington/Ft. Wayne
Kentucky:   WMTA, 1380am, Central City
Massach:    WSSH, 1510am, Boston (50,000 watts)
            WKPE, 1170am, Orleans
Missouri:   WBGZ, 1570am, St. Louis
N. Carolina:WEEB, 990am,  Fayetteville
            WCRY, 1460am, Raleigh/Durham
            WNCT, 1070am, Greenville
Nebraska:   KICS, 1550am, Hastings/Lincoln
Oklahoma:   KTMC, 1400am, Mcalester
Utah:       K26DI,Channel 26, TV, Castledale

Ham Radio & More is on the Talk America Network. It is aired live every Sunday
at 6:00pm EST, originating from Phoenix, Arizona. It can be heard via TVRO
satellite on Spacenet 3, Transponder 9, 6.8 audio. Our toll free listener call-in
line is 1-800-298-TALK. The originating station number is 1-602-241-1510 for more
information. Any radio station can air the show FREE OF CHARGE.

73, Len, KB7LPW

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 17:08:22 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ed Hare (KA1CV))
Subject: Learning CW visually

Derek Wills ([e-mail]) wrote:

: >>My problem is that I learned the code by looking at it written as "."
: >>and "-" on paper.

: >That's what I did as a kid, long ago, and the negative effects of that
: >are biting me even today.

:    Take heart.  I learned it that way, and I can copy 35 wpm on a good
:    day, especially after some coffee.   So maybe I could do 60 wpm had
:    I learned it the right way, but it's good enough for me.

I learned code from a written chart, but immediately translated it to dit
and daaah in my head as I did. I have peaked at solid head copy of about 50
wpm, but have slowed down to about 40 now on an average day (I have been a
bit inactive of late.) I guess the mistakes of our wild youth can be
overcome as we age. :-)

As an interesting aside, when I was licensed as WA1CYF, which expired in the
late 60s, I peaked at about 15 wpm, and I couldn't get past it no matter
what I did. When I returned to the hobby (I mean Service...), I started off
FASTER than 15 wpm, and picked up rapidly from there. Three months of
on-the-air activity had me at 40 wpm with no difficulty! Now, this is one I
just don't understand. :-)

73 from ARRL HQ, Ed









:    Even now, I still think I see the symbols "written out" as I hear
:    them, but I guess I don't, because if I see words written out in Morse
:    code (e.g. in QST ads or people's signatures), I have to 'sound' the
:    symbols in order to translate them.

:    Enjoy!


: Derek Wills (AA5BT, G3NMX)
: Department of Astronomy, University of Texas,
: Austin TX 78712.  (512-471-1392)
: [e-mail]
--
Ed Hare, KA1CV, ARRL Laboratory, 225 Main, Newington, CT 06111
203-666-1541 [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 19:12:49 GMT
From: [e-mail] (David Tiller)
Subject: Lightning protection advice needed!!!

Russ Bullock ([e-mail]) wrote:

:      I'm looking for some advice that anyone can offer on how I might protect
: my tower-mounted wind sensors from lightning damage.
:
:         I'd appreciate any advice from you radio folks out there.  I'll try
: anything not too expensive or ridiculous, including grounded conduit on the
: tower or spiritual incantations.  Thanks in advance.

All the grounding in the world isn't going to help - it sounds like you've
got a Heathkit-like weather station.  They're famous for blowing up at the
slightest hint of sparkin' in the air.  My solution was to optoisolate the
wind vane/anemometer from the rest of the box.

Take a look at the schematic - the voltage that powers the LEDs in the
remote head comes from the same supply that runs the processor, etc!!
You need to run a separate power source up the pole (from a wall tumor)
that powers those LEDs and also powers optoisolators that connect to the
main box inside.
--
David Tiller                | Network Administrator | Voice: [phone]   |
[e-mail] |  n2kau/4  | Randolph-Macon College| Fax:   [phone]   |
  Don't let your SKS get    | P.O. Box 5005         | ICBM:  37d 42' 43.75" N |
"Tainted with Defilement!"  | Ashland, Va 23005     |        77d 31' 32.19" W |

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1994 14:59:13 -0500
From: [e-mail] (David Adams)
Subject: Need info on TS-520

Greetings!  I am the proud new owner of a TS520 withough a manual (if
you have a spare or can copy it for me, let me know) or power cord.
I see that it can be powered off of 13.8 DC 120 or 220, but need to
know what to hook up to construct a cord for standard US 120....Any
info would be appreciated.


73 de dave, n9uxu
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 13:06:49
From: [e-mail] (Bill Vaughn)
Subject: Radio Show Exchange Using Maven

In article <37cnjr$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leland Peterson) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Leland Peterson)
>Subject: Radio Show Exchange Using Maven
>Date: 10 Oct 1994 17:52:11 -0700


>My college radio station is looking to exchange radio programs (1 hour)
>over the internet with other colleges using Maven.  We have a Mac on an
>ethernet network connected to our broadcasting board.  We have tried
>sending an on-air broadcast to different Macintoshes around campus and it
>seems to work pretty well.

>Basically, all you need is a line-level signal from your broadcast booth
>into a Macintosh on a network capable of accessing the internet.  The
>Maven software is shareware.

>It does take up quite a bit of band-width, so the broadcasts will have to
>be late at night.  Right now I am interested in running a few short tests
>to study sound quality.  Is anyone interested?

>Please contact me via e-mail at [e-mail].

>Thanks,
>Leland Peterson,
>Music Director,
>KLC Radio

>PS  Credit for this idea goes to a guy named Paul that works at the station.

I have the Cu-Seeme software for the PC and I knew that maven can be used in
conjunction on mac's. I am curious to know if there is a maven equivilent for
PC's. BTW do you have the address for cornell and the CU-Seeme ftp site.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1994 16:47:02 -0400
From: [e-mail] (RBellville)
Subject: WANTED! Schematic for Alinco SR-4 simplex rptr.

I need a schematic for an Alinco SR-4 simplex repeater. Calls and faxes to
Alinco have not proved fruitful. Will pay copying costs!

Thanks - Rob, N1NTE

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1994 21:03:28 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Holtzman)
Subject: Wireless security systems and amateur radio

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Griffin - x7792) writes:
>Anyone have any experience with wireless security systems and amateur
>radio?
>
>Currently I am up on the VHF/UHF bands, but plan to get on HF as soon as I
>get the code down and upgrade.  I've considered installing a wired security
>system (using shielded pair), but due to the construction of our existing
>house this costs more than I care to spend.  So, I am looking at wireless
>systems.
>
>If you have a wireless security system, I would be very interested in
>knowing the following:
>
Let me take a stab at it.  I sell hard wired and wireless systems.  The brands
I sell are mostly Ademco and Linear.  Both are commercial brands, not the
consumer grade, user-installed systems that Radio Shack, Stanley, or the
Home Builder's Warehouses type stores might sell.  They work on a freq of
approx 302 MHz.  They use digital encoding.

I don't see how there would be a conflict with ham eq and the system.  The
only conflict that might exist, although I have never heard of it, would be
to transmit near a sensor, such as a PIR, swamp out the electronics and cause
a false alarm.  The ham transmitter would not confuse the alarm receiver, but
would cause the PIR to transmit a false alarm.  If the ham transmitter, was
on the same freq as the alarm transmitter, the alarm's receiver would be
swamped out.  Hams don't transmit on 302 MHz, nor would there be a harmonic
on that freq.

My experience has been with short range wireless.  There is also a long range
wireless.  I haven't had any experience with long range.

I have heard of problems with hard-wired systems, being interferred with by
police radios, causing false alarms.

Hope this helps.

James Holtzman kc6ncg ([e-mail])

------------------------------

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1114
******************************